If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I am skeptical that the effect will be important in this project. At the moment we have two huge counterexamples in the Reds and Tigers. We elected only 9 Reds despite the advantage of 12 voters. (Minimum 9 of 12 votes to elect, versus 9 of 11 for the Cubs and Orioles.) We elected 13 Tigers despite the disadvantage of 15 voters. (Min 12 of 15)

For now I will simply wait until we have more teams with 10 to 12 ballots cast, I hope.
... Oh, I will look at the teams with less than 10 ballots, too, although the elections will be unofficial.

P.S.
The Reds have been the most surprising to me so far, nothing to do with the number of ballots cast, which adds only a tiny bit more surprise. Why does consensus about their greatest players fall short?

P.S.
I have looked at 3000 pa and 2000 pa milestones. The four counts are 19,20,18,22 and 42,36,38,39. There may be little scope for variation in frequency of career milestones down at those levels, for these teams which have played 50 or 49 seasons.

Given that the Rangers and Angels are struggling to reach 10 votes, I don't think it bodes well for voter turnout as we go on. So I think I'm going to lower the number of ballots needed to 8. This is the lower number of ballots we can have where it's still possible to elect someone by 75% or higher. The Rangers and Angels will be fine under this number, though if any team in the future can't get at least 8 votes, I think it's safe to say it's not really worth having the results anyway.

Given that the Rangers and Angels are struggling to reach 10 votes, I don't think it bodes well for voter turnout as we go on. So I think I'm going to lower the number of ballots needed to 8. This is the lower number of ballots we can have where it's still possible to elect someone by 75% or higher. The Rangers and Angels will be fine under this number, though if any team in the future can't get at least 8 votes, I think it's safe to say it's not really worth having the results anyway.

I can understand that. My only concern was throwing out the results when you had 8 or 9 guys buying into one candidate, and that would be enough to elect if in fact you had 10 voters. The rest of the details are in your capable hands as the manager of the project.

Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

Given that the Rangers and Angels are struggling to reach 10 votes, I don't think it bodes well for voter turnout as we go on. So I think I'm going to lower the number of ballots needed to 8. This is the lower number of ballots we can have where it's still possible to elect someone by 75% or higher. The Rangers and Angels will be fine under this number, though if any team in the future can't get at least 8 votes, I think it's safe to say it's not really worth having the results anyway.

In my opinion, the four most recent expansion teams really don't have enough eligible candidates for a substantial Hall of Fame. A lot of their best players are still active. You might consider ending Round One after the Blue Jays and Mariners elections are done. Alternately, you could have a joint Hall of Fame for the Rockies, Marlins, D'backs, and Rays.

In my opinion, the four most recent expansion teams really don't have enough eligible candidates for a substantial Hall of Fame. A lot of their best players are still active. You might consider ending Round One after the Blue Jays and Mariners elections are done. Alternately, you could have a joint Hall of Fame for the Rockies, Marlins, D'backs, and Rays.

At this point, I have three or four players among those teams, at least two from Arizona (Randy Johnson and Luis Gonzalez, plus Brandon Webb if he's eligible. I might be persuaded to add Schilling). Beyond that, I've got Larry Walker from Colorado, and Leyland as a contributor in Florida, though I could be persuaded to add contributors. The other teams have several candidates each I'm willing to support.

Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

The last wave of teams have been around for a generation in baseball. While I wouldn't expect anyone to vote a full ballot, each team has at least one viable candidate with the exception of the Rays, and I'd rather see them go one round even if they don't elect anyone:

Every team will get at least one round. As others have noted above, the Rays may be the only franchise without any real viable candidates. If we don't elect anyone for certain franchises, then so be it.

For example (bold), the Astros have six 6000-pa batters; the Mets have none.

Among all ten 1960s-70s expansion teams covered here, the Astros (underline) lead at the two lower thresholds for pitchers, 1500 and 1000 innings, and lead at all three thresholds for batters, 8000, 6000, and 4000 pa (including ties). Three teams have one more 2000-inning pitcher than do the Astros.

The Padres have many fewer 8000-, 6000-, and 4000-pa batters than any other of these ten mature expansion teams, fewer than half as many at the 4000 threshold, seven to three! They trail all the others down to 3000 pa and 2000 pa, also, although the Bluejays and Mariners are eight seasons younger.

Last edited by Paul Wendt; 03-11-2011 at 09:42 AM.
Reason: fix miscount and clarify English

Given that the Rangers and Angels are struggling to reach 10 votes, I don't think it bodes well for voter turnout as we go on. So I think I'm going to lower the number of ballots needed to 8. This is the lower number of ballots we can have where it's still possible to elect someone by 75% or higher. The Rangers and Angels will be fine under this number, though if any team in the future can't get at least 8 votes, I think it's safe to say it's not really worth having the results anyway.

I've been extremely busy lately between family sickness, work, and other personal projects. I intended to vote in each team's election, but just missed out for a while.

I like the idea of requiring a minimum of 8 ballots, but when less than 10 actual ballots are cast at least 8 votes required for election (as if blank ballots were cast to get the number up to 10...does that make sense?)

I am sorting out how I want to proceed, and the framework I have come up with is that I will go with a new pair of franchises every five days--one of the original 16 paired with an expansion team. This will get us through the second round of all teams whose elections have already finished. I know that toward the end of July I will skip a turn due to being away. For anyone who wants to know what's coming up, here are the pairings:

Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

I think that due to my vacation at the end of the month, I won't post the A's and Royals until Saturday and I'll let them run for two weeks. I'll post the next two teams on the 21st and also let that run for two weeks, and then we'll resume the ten day schedule.

Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

We had fifteen teams make the third round (assuming the Brewers don't have a massive change). Fourteen of the original sixteen (the Cubs and Twins fell to insufficient interest) plus the Mets. We've already started the Yankees third round. The pairings after will be this:
Dodgers and A's
Red Sox and White Sox
Giants and Braves
Cards and Orioles
Phils and Indians
Pirates and Reds
Mets and Tigers

Last edited by jalbright; 12-10-2011 at 07:14 AM.

Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

I'm going to put the Giants and Braves up this weekend and let them run until the 31st. I won't put the Cards and Orioles up until sometime between Christmas Eve (the 24th) and the 26th (almost certainly not on Christmas day) and let that election run until January 14. I'll put up the Phils and Indians on January 14th, and that will run for two weeks, and we'll put up the Pirates and Reds for 2 weeks on January 28, and after that 2 weeks is done, we'll finish the third round with two weeks of the Tigers and Mets. After that, we'll begin the fourth round.

Last edited by jalbright; 12-10-2011 at 07:15 AM.

Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

As I need to give my other project another week, I'm adjusting the schedule set out above. I'm going to post the Phils and Indians today and open until the 21st, and I'll make up my mind on the others depending on how the other project fares.

Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

With the failure of the other project, I'm going to post the Pirates and Reds this week, and the Tigers and Mets on the 21st. I'll skip the 28th and start the fourth round with the end of the Tigers and Mets on the 4th.

Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

The next few posts are for some cases I'll present during the second chance elections. As of now (focusing only on franchises that are done with their player elections or contributors where the contributor elections are closed), they are:

Phillies
Del Ennis

Indians
Wes Ferrell

Cubs
George Gore
Billy Herman
King Kelly
Clark Griffith

Mets
Joan Payson (contributor)
William Shea (contributor)

Please note that unless noted otherwise, the candidates are players.

Last edited by jalbright; 01-26-2012 at 03:42 PM.

Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

Del Ennis was the Phillies' power source during the 50's.
He was in the top 10 in slg % 5 times for the club
He was in the top 10 in BA 3 times for the club
He was in the top 10 in WAR among position players for the club 3 times
He was in the top 10 in HR 8 times for the club and
He was in the 1op 10 in RBI 8 times for the club.

Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

He was in the top 10 in WAR 4 times for the club;
In 1939-32 he had 2d, 3d, 4th and 6th place finishes in WAR among P;
He was in the top 10 in ERA 4 times for the club;
He was in the top 10 in W/L percentage 4 times for the club;
He was in the top 4 in wins 4 times for the club;
He was in the top 10 in strikeouts per nine IP three times for the club;
He was in the top 10 in complete games five times for the club;
He was in the top 4 in IP three times for the club; and
He was in the top 10 in strikeouts 4 times for the club.

I might add that during his time with the Indians, he had the 7th most WAR among pitchers in the majors.

Last edited by jalbright; 02-14-2012 at 08:34 AM.

Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

The next few posts are for some cases I'll present during the second chance elections. As of now (focusing only on franchises that are done with their player elections), they are:

Phillies
Del Ennis

Indians
Wes Ferrell

Cubs
George Gore
Billy Herman
King Kelly
Clark Griffith

These are all excellent candidates who are glaring oversights. I plan on making a case for Johnny Kling who I also see as a glaring omission for the Chicago Cubs when I have the time. They were the one team in this project who definitely got short changed.

George Gore was excellent as a Cub
He was in the top 7 in WAR among position players 6 times for the team;
He was in the top 7 in BA 5 times for the team;
He was in the top 6 in OBP 7 times for the team;
He was in the top 10 in slugging percentage 6 times for the team;
He was twice in the top 10 in RBI for the team;
He was 7 times in the 10 in runs scored for the team;
He was the best OF in the majors in WAR 4 times (1880, 1882, 1883, and 1885);
He was the second best OF in the majors in WAR twice (1881 and 1886); and
He was the sixth best OF in the majors in WAR in 1884, but 4th best in the NL.
So, he was good enough to be a starting all-star 6 times with the Cubs and a reserve all star another time.

Last edited by jalbright; 02-10-2012 at 08:34 PM.

Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

Billy Herman played 10 years for the Cubs, his first 10, and many of his best
He was a 7 time all star for the franchise;
He was mentioned in the MVP voting 5 times for the franchise;
He was in the top 10 in WAR among the position players 4 times for the franchise;
He was in the top 10 in runs scored 6 times for the franchise;
He was best in range factor in 2B four time for the franchise and second three times;
He was the best 2B in WAR in the NL 5 times (1932 and 1934-37);
He was the second best 2B in WAR in the NL 3 times (1938-1940)

So, you've got a darned good fielding 2B who can also hit well. Unsurprisingly, he was consistently all-star quality. He's belongs among the all-time Cubs.

Last edited by jalbright; 02-10-2012 at 08:37 PM.

Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

King Kelly was.an early star for the Cubs.
He was in the top 6 in WAR among position players 4 times for the team;
He was in the top 2 in batting average 5 times for the team;
He was in the top 10 in OBP 5 times for the team;
He was in the top 10 in slugging percentage 6 times for the team;
He was in the top 6 in runs scored 7 times for the team; and
He was in the top 10 in RBI 7 times for the team.

He deserves enshrinement among the Cubs.

Last edited by jalbright; 03-30-2012 at 02:14 PM.

Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

Clark Griffith with the Cubs
He was in the top 10 in WAR among P five times for the team;
He was in the top 10 in ERA three times for the team;
He was in the top 10 in wins five times for the team;
He was in the top 6 in W/L percentage 4 times for the team; and
He was in the top 10 in complete games 5 times for the team.

Last edited by jalbright; 02-13-2012 at 07:14 PM.

Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

Feb 4, 2011The First Met's Owner & Woman Pioneeress: Joan Whitney Payson (1962-1975)
Joan Whitney Payson was born on February 5, 1903 in New York City. She was an heiress to the prominent Whitney Family and received much of the fortune when her father passed on. She would marry Charles Shipman Payson, a lawyer and successful businessman himself. The two lived in a 50 room mansion in Manhasset, NY with their own private art gallery.

She collected art and has many notable works donated in her name at the NY Metropolitan Museum of Art, in the Joan Payson Galleries. She along with her brother also ran Green Tree Stable & Breeding Farms in Saratoga NY & Lexington Kentucky. Their horses won four Belmont Stakes, two Kentucky Derby’s & a Preakness. The family interests also backed finances for Broadway plays & movies, including A Streetcar Named Desire & Gone With the Wind.

Mrs. Payson was a huge baseball fan and became a minority holder in the New York Giants baseball club. Her favorite player was Willie Mays. She voted against the Giants move to California, and sold her shares when they left. She began to work hard to find a replacement team.

In 1962 she became the first woman in America to buy a majority share of a sports team. She was the Mets majority stock holder, team President and was involved in baseball operations from 1962-1975. Unfortunately she trusted M. Donald Grant with many decisions in the later years. Her husband Charles Shipman had no interest in baseball. She loved her team, and was good to her players. They also had a deep respect and admiration for her.

She was always seen in the front row of Shea Stadium rooting on her team, not in an owner’s box. In 1972 she got Willie Mays back to New York to finish his career as a New York Met.

After her passing in 1975, her daughter inherited the team; Lorinda De Roulet.

She knew nothing about baseball either, and along with M. Donald Grant they destroyed the organization for the next few years.

They sold their shares in 1981 when the Wilpon/ Doubleday ownership took over.

Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.